A new federal infrastructure grant program from the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) is effectively sending a signal that merit shop pipeline contractors are not welcome to build natural gas infrastructure supported by taxpayer dollars.
On March 23, 2026, the U.S. DOT's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) <a href="https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/news/trumps-transportation-department-invest-nearly-100-million-modernizing-aging-pipeline" target="_blank">announced</a> its $98 million <a href="https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/about-phmsa/working-phmsa/grants/pipeline/natural-gas-distribution-infrastructure-safety-and-modernization-grants" target="_blank">Natural Gas Distribution Infrastructure Safety and Modernization (NGDISM) grant program</a> that will evaluate projects based in part<a href="https://www.americanpipeline.org/images/pdf/leg/DOT%20PHMSA%20FY%202026%20NGDISM%20Grant%20Program%20NOFO%20032326.pdf#page=21" target="_blank"> on whether they include union participation or project labor agreements (PLAs)</a>.
That means contractors who don’t use PLAs—like most merit shop pipeline companies—could be excluded by municipal or community owned utilities seeking NGDISM grant funding, regardless of contractors’ safety, cost, and performance history.&nbsp;
This is not an explicit PLA mandate—but it’s a de facto preference that tilts the playing field in favor of labor unions and unionized pipeline contractors at the expense of free enterprise and merit shop pipeline contractors employing more than 77% of the U.S. pipeline construction industry workforce who choose not to affiliate with unions.
Take two minutes to speak out:&nbsp;&nbsp;
<ul>
<li>Tell the White House and DOT's PHMSA to remove PLA preferences from federal agency grant criteria&nbsp;</li>
<li>Urge them to focus on what matters: safety, quality, and cost-effectiveness&nbsp;</li>
<li>Demand fair and open competition for all qualified contractors&nbsp;</li>
</ul>
When merit shop pipeline contractors are sidelined, communities lose out on the best value and the most efficient delivery of critical energy infrastructure.&nbsp;
Act now. Make your voice heard.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

Tell PHMSA and the Trump Administration to Stop Favoring PLAs in Federal Grants

On behalf of pipeline contractors and construction industry stakeholders committed to fair and open competition in taxpayer-funded infrastructure investment, I am writing to express serious concerns regarding the U.S. Department of Transportation's (DOT) inclusion of project labor agreements (PLAs) as an evaluation criterion in the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration’s (PHMSA) $98 million Natural Gas Distribution Infrastructure Safety and Modernization (NGDISM) grant program for municipal or community owned utilities to invest in America's aging pipeline infrastructure.

Specifically, the NGDISM Notice of Funding Opportunity announced by the DOT on March 23, 2026, indicates that PHMSA will assess, “whether and how the project will include union participation or project labor agreements, which promote cost-effectiveness and open competition,” as part of its grant application evaluation. While framed as one of several factors, this language effectively creates a preference that advantages certain applicants based on labor affiliation rather than core project delivery merits.

This approach raises several concerns:

First, it undermines the principle of fair and open competition. For decades, federal procurement and grantmaking policy set by Congress generally maintained a neutral stance on labor relations. Unfortunately, legally questionable Obama and Biden administration executive orders departed from precedent and directed federal agencies to mandate and/or encourage the use of PLAs on certain federal and federally assisted construction projects funded by taxpayers.  By rewarding NGDISM grant applicants that require PLAs, the DOT is implicitly disadvantaging qualified small and large contractors not affiliated with unions—who hire almost 90% of the U.S. construction workforce and 77% of the U.S. pipeline construction workforce—despite their proven ability to deliver safe, cost-effective, and timely infrastructure projects.

Second, in contrast to the DOT's assertion that PLAs “promote cost-effective and open competition,” government and private-sector research findings, available at BuildAmericaLocal.com, indicate that PLA mandates increase costs 12% to 20%, exacerbate the construction industry’s 2026 skilled labor shortage of 350,000 workers, and undermine the Trump administration’s goal of creating one million apprentices. In addition, PLA mandates can require contributions to union benefit and pension plans that nonunion workers are unlikely to ever vest in or access—creating a situation where workers may not fully realize the value of compensation paid on their behalf unless they remain within the union system.

Third, the lack of transparency regarding how heavily this factor is weighted in the NGDISM grant program creates uncertainty and risk for applicants. If PLA inclusion can tip the balance between otherwise competitive proposals, then the program is effectively steering outcomes without clear disclosure or justification tied to performance metrics such as safety, cost, or delivery efficiency.

Finally, this approach is inconsistent with broader White House and congressional priorities to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens and promote competition in infrastructure delivery. 

Encouraging or rewarding anti-competitive and costly PLAs runs counter to those objectives.

We respectfully urge the DOT and the Trump administration to:
•	Remove references to PLAs and union participation as evaluation criteria in PHMSA and all DOT infrastructure grant programs;
•	Ensure that all applicants are evaluated solely on objective, performance-based factors such as safety outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and project readiness;
•	Reaffirm the federal government’s commitment to neutrality in labor relations and equal opportunity for all qualified contractors.

America’s energy and infrastructure challenges require maximizing participation, innovation, and efficiency—not narrowing the field through subjective preferences unrelated to project performance.

I appreciate your consideration and stand ready to work collaboratively to ensure that taxpayer-funded infrastructure programs remain fair, transparent, and effective.